Monday, June 18, 2007

Professor Bannon's Lecture

Brad Bannon instructs the DHC panel on the unidentified male DNA that Mike Nifong and Brian Meehan withheld from the court and from defense attorneys. In this lecture, of just over two minutes, Bannon more clearly explained the role of DNA in the case than Meehan did in several hours of evasive testimony.

It was mentioned that Meehan used certain language that seemed more legal than scientific. I wonder if there are any plans to look at other reports to see if he had ever used said language before.

KC, thanks for continuing to send bits from the hearings. I watched it straight through and it was a bit of overload. I'm glad to see bits to consider one at a time. I have to believe that this happened for a reason. I have been so appreciative for the families that on 2 occasions judges have used the word "innocent." I know that the general public uses it often, when the appropriate term is actually "not guilty." I've served in jury duty 4 times and cautioned that the person might be not guilty, but that does not mean they were innocent. It just means the prosecutor was unable to prove it. OJ is a good example. When he was in civil court, he was found responsible for the 2 deaths.

So, it is SO BIG to hear the 2 judges say innocent. They have not used the not guilty tag. They also made it clear that it was not a technicality that proved their innocence. These families truly got their lives back that day.

This goes to show what a setup it was right from the very beginning.With all this dna from all the other people all over magnums body, and her changing her story so often. How can any honest, half a brain prosecutor make all those public statements so early in the case.

Even being as uneducated as I am, it looks like the lx players were the only males not to shoot their load on or in magnum.

Plus everytime I hear meehans name I get pissed..That maggot lied his ass off on the stand, when he actually tried answered a question.

I'm willing to believe that Nifong et al pressured Mangum, and even if she wanted to back out, they wouldn't let her. [this is just my conjecture] She didn't even say "rape" until someone suggested it to her. I think she might have thought to take the scrutiny off herself.

I'm not a lawyer or watch court proceedings all that much, but I have sat through any number of interminable meetings in the business world. And I can tell you that if someone is droning on and on and on about something and yet imparts extremely little information, it means either (a) the person doesn't know shit about what they're talking about, or (b) the person is trying to fuck you over in some way.

Meehan's performance in a way was worse than Nifong. We expected him to lie and try to rationalize his criminal actions, what else could he do?

Meehan has no excuse. Nifong threw him under the bus despite his best efforts to blur the picture w/the interim report lingo and his statement of having 'misspoke' abou the agreement to withhold DNA results.

Why didn't he simply tell the truth? He wanted to clear himself of any wrongdoing, why not admit Nifong however he communicated it, made it clear he wanted a report with only 'matches' and no ohter DNA.

By trying to have his cake and eat it too, Meehan came off as a complete liar and not too competant.

I've followed this case fairly closely. In response to Brannon's DNA testimony, all I can say as an M.D. is, Wow! CGM is simply a sexual instrument with legs. None of the madia reports indicated 2 male DNAs in oral swabs.

And she has, what, 3 kids?

As a society, justice being served in this case has only pulled us back a couple of microns from the edge of the abyss.Tom

Recall a question posed by the female member of the panel to Nifong. She inquired as to whether he considered the presence of the other males' DNA as something he should pursue as they could have been the alleged rapists. Nifong said no.

Is he culpable though? Can't he plead ignorance of the laws of discovery and what Nifong did or didn't turn over, heck, he could have said he figured he had memorialized the meeting and sent the defense an oral or written report?

It seems to me he took the worst possible approach, "I don't know why he asked for a report like that, never thought about it....discovery is the DA's responsibility, all I do is test DNA" Wouldn't that have been better than the hocus pocus interim report, well yes I told him about XYZ, and then he asked for a report with ABC, but, nope, he never 'asked' me to keep ZYX out of the report, and blah blah blah. IN his case, pretending to be stupid would have been better and more straightforward than pretending to be only sort of stupid while trying to throw Mike Nifong a life line that he summarily rejected anyway.

Bannon's testimony bears out the descriptions found in Yaeger's and Pressler's "It's Not About the Truth." Fats Thomas, the strip club security manager, says that she would do anything for a few bucks, which is why she had genetic material all over her. It is amazing that Nifong staked his career on--and that the players almost had their lives destroyed by--a walking, talking DNA magnet.

If he had pled the Fifth the Bar could have considered it. Outside a criminal case a witness takes the fifth at great risk: he has no right to demand that a civil jury hearing a suit for damages ignore it; a jury can usually consider it. When the witness taking the Fifth is a party its almost always the end.

Nifong's only chance to maintain a defense in any future civil suit and any possibility of hanging on to his license was to risk everything to get soft treatment from the bar. To testify. Taking the fifth would have doomed him from the start.

He gambled that the bar panel might be confused; reluctant to disbar him; "split the baby" by suspending him...find what he did excusable. He even resigned and cried to try to grease a softer finding ("he's been punished enough"). He lost.

Now everyone has his testimony on tape. The findings may not be admissible in later cases but his testimony is. He's doomed. The NC Bar really stood up for the juicial system.

There are too many obvious jokes to be made about Magnum's Crystalized panties and crusty nether regions.

But, at very least, could Jesse Jerkson pay for Crystal's laundry along with her scholarship?

I mean, the group of 88 wanted to increase discussion, aka "social intercourse" but perhaps they could also promote showering and laundry, say in between every 3rd male so it's not too much of a burden on a young "scholar"'s time.

Second - Yuck! TWO men in her mouth? Okay, now I've stopped gagging momentarily, I must ask how on earth DNA could have stayed in there longer than a few hours? Ordinary swallowing should have eliminated all of it (ecckk!) plus Crystal took a rum and Coke at the party so the alcohol and acidic Coke should also have destroyed the DNA. Yet DNA was still in her mouth when she showed up at the hospital hours later. Is it therefore beyond the realm of possibility to suppose that the real reason the cops destroyed the tapes of Crystal's arrest was because in between picking her up at Krogers and taking her to the drunk tank, the cops exchanged something more than polite hello's with her? (Actually the cops would have talked while Crystal -- made other sounds.)

And now that I've asked that disgusting question, I'm going to go back to gagging again.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review